Friday, July 12, 2024

The Bare Facts About Credit Scores: "The Emperor's New Clothes"...

http://centerfortheartsriverridge.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/Emperor.png 

   RBL: "Gym" shorts at SECU?

    From my credit card issuer: "Welcome, James! "Great work - your FICO credit score has gone up! [😎 Where's my trophy?] 

✅ But that's the end of the story, not the beginning!

Early in June, 2024, my credit score dropped overnight by -61 points! Not a minor matter. That abrupt drop came despite exceptional ratings by FICO on payment history over a 50-year period and minimal debt. What happened, how had I failed? The announcement above was received this week in July, 2024, congratulating me on my success in improving my finances! A 120+ point credit score flip flop in 30 days! What happened, how had I succeeded?

 

😎 Did you know that even if you use your credit card faithfully it can cause a "substantial decline" in your credit score? Does that make sense to you - or to anybody?  Does that sound fair? Here take a look for yourself ...

 

✅ "Does carrying a balance affect your credit scores?"

"Carrying a credit card balance can affect your credit score in several ways. However, the biggest impact is generally on your credit utilization. Experts recommend keeping your credit utilization below 30% of your total available credit." [😎 then why do you give me such a high credit limit?]

"A high utilization rate will likely hurt your credit score, often causing a substantial decline." [😎 if I use it, I lose it?]

"Credit card issuers often report balances around the end of the statement period. With many cards, this happens around three to four weeks before the bill is due and when your utilization is high. As a result, you could make credit card payments in full every month and still see a decline in your credit score." [😎 evidently there is an algorithm for "completely idiotic"!]

 

✅  According to NerdWallet: "The Fix": "Pay down the high balances as soon as you can and return to using a small portion of your available credit. Or, you could consider asking for a higher credit limit. " [😎 Whoa, would you repeat that again slowly, I'm missing something !!!]

 ðŸ˜Ž So you see, the risk/race-based lending (RBL) system approved by the SECU Board of Directors [😎 and the "ELT" wizards of finance!] charges the majority of SECU members higher loan rates even when members may be using credit responsibly - that's unjust discrimination, isn't it? 

 

... why won't the SECU Board accept... the naked truth 😎?

 

70 comments:

  1. because The SECU Board repetitively demonstrates they are clueless. (i.e. they don't know what they are doing!!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Quote - "Can't fix stupid."
    4 more in '24!

    ReplyDelete
  3. man I'm dizzy after reading that ....
    so they got some math wizard to complete the following work order ... extract as much money as you can from everyone who has a credit card no matter how responsible they use it ... and if they don't have one, take twice as much from those folks!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. because the bottom line is getting every last cent they can from you and good luck finding someone to have your back!
      It's non-stop, everyday, everybody, everywhere!

      Delete
  4. Like George Carlin said, “It’s a big club, and you ain’t in it.” But, you’re funding it!

    ReplyDelete
  5. "why won't the SECU Board accept... the naked truth 😎?"
    in a just world, these clowns would be run out of town as snake oil salesmen ...

    ReplyDelete
  6. I would bet that an analysis of borrower data shows borrowers who utilize small portions of available credit pay as agreed at significantly higher rates than those who utilize large portions of available credit. Credit limits are there to protect the lending institution; they aren’t there for borrowers to stay at. Using a large portion of your available credit may indicate you are not handling your finances as well as you could be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. See 6:08 pm for your IQ rating.

      Delete
  7. not hard to dramatize this. the discriminatory claim indicts us and all others in the CU industry who use credit scores for TBL. What regulatory actions can you cite that have been taken against CU's for using credit scores in TBL as a discriminatory practice? sure, scores can change month to month, but you're giving an extreme example. it's not complicated.. pay your bills on time, don't max out on credit cards or otherwise take on too much credit, and avoid excessive applications for credit, and your score will be fine and you will not be harmed when you need credit. Sure, credit scores are volatile month-to-month (although there is evidence published that a 61 point drop is not the norm), but if members are applying for credit every month, that's a different problem. Also, in TBL, it's not about whether the score changes a little, it's about whether the score change triggers a TBL tier and rate change. If you drop from 860 to 800, you're still A tier. Reducing from 5 to 3 tiers and having wider bands reduces the frequency that a score changes enough to trigger a different rate. You characterize the switch from 5 to 3 as an admission of failure by ELT, but it's an improvement which addresses this issue you raise. You can dramatize extreme examples, but paying your bills on time and using credit responsibility always is harmful to no member over time. I ask again, JB, or in fact challenge you to show where the NCUA or CFPB has taken a regulatory action for discrimination for using credit scores to assign a rate. For that matter, regulatory action aside, can you cite any regulatory or interagency guidance that discourages the practice? JB calling it discrimination doesn't make it so. You continue to discredit yourself with the discrimation argument against TBL. I asl the question AND give you the challenge, but I already know you can't cite a source (regulator) who gets to define and enforce discrimination will disavow the practice. you can argue it's not the right thing for us to do even if it's not discriminatory.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let's do a hypothetical. Let's say a financial institution decides it's not going to use the established credit score. They are going to use the info on the credit report to establish their own scoring system to decide which customers get what product (or no product).

      Think a regulator might have an interest or issue with that? Yeah, I do too. Don't see much difference between that and a credit bureau when all is said and done. Credit Bureaus got a pass they don't deserve.

      Delete
    2. Guess it’s just a coincidence that non-whites and women on average have lower scores? Just a coincidence non-whites and women on average are paid less to do the same job?
      Do you understand the only people affected by higher interest under race based lending are the ones who pay the loans?
      Can you explain why charge offs have gone through the roof the past three years, when the only change is race based lending?
      Can you explain how secu achieved record profits in the two years prior to race based lending?
      If race based lending is the answer, why aren’t there more credit unions close to the size of secu that don’t serve the military or grew through mergers?

      Delete
  8. Thought readers would like to see the face of discrimination - always, of course, boldly anonymous. Always limited in range of thought to "everyone is doing it". Lives "inside the box" and is comfortable there.

    Any example is "extreme" that disproves their agenda. Patronizing, arrogant, self-appointed to scold others for their lack of perfection. A superior sort, comfortably locked behind the gates of a closed mind.

    The type of mind who still believes the earth is flat, that women are not qualified to vote, that blacks belong at the back of the bus - because at the time "the regulators' thought that was right... and everybody was doing it!

    Best example ever of what so many members and staff believe has gone wrong at SECU... a return to the past which so many Americans have struggled to overcome.

    Not "everyone" thinks discrimination is okay, even when "everyone else is doing it" ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are the only one calling that post “the face of discrimination”. Everyone else simply calls it an opposing view, something this country and world used to believe in.

      Delete
    2. Not the original poster, but it appears you failed to answer any of their questions. Are you saying with the exception of legacy SECU, that the entire financial system including the cfpb is discriminatory on an illegal basis?

      Delete
    3. Hiding discrimination behind "opposing view" is a classic. Unfortunately, you're not the first to use it.

      Delete
    4. 11:24am hiding behind "opposing view" or even better "industry standard". Our LA is an embarrassing joke and costly to our members.

      Delete
    5. that seems to be the position. doing anything because everyone else does is not wise, but this issue isn't that simple. Admin is going after card late fees, removing credit reporting on medical debt, etc, but is silent on this issue. RBL isn't being challenged in the courts, not being looked at by the legislature, and regulators support financial institutions pricing for the risk they take. It's not redlining. that got fixed for a reason. I think the same rate for all is a superior business model, but that doesn't make the alternative illegal. and, respectfully, trying to convince our members that the CU is lending illegally doesn't serve the SECU community.

      Delete
    6. It wasn't just SECU that gave everyone the same rate in the CU industry. It was standard practice to lend at the same rate to all members. It has gone out of fashion at the moment because it allows financial institutions to make more profit and claim a non-discriminatory, unbiased and scientific methodology is being used to determine what a member's rate will be. Do you believe that?

      Delete
    7. 11:41am SECU Board and ELT are shaming the credit union, injuring the reputation of the staff, and financially hurting most members. Now losing millions by "can't fix stupid" lending.

      Costly proven financial failures (pick one): a) Board, b) ELT, c) our disasterous LA, or d) all of the above.

      Delete
    8. 12:14 pm Thanks for making the point that current SECU Board lending policy is afinancial disaster. Our losses now exceed both our NC peers and other large CU. LA clearly sucks, that is financial fact. Why won't our Board admit its continuing mistakes? Gym first now this. Trickle down rot is destroying our cu

      Delete
    9. 10:01 am Sorry overlooked your comment.

      Yes, I believe that if you use credit scores to inaccurately profile individuals and overcharge those borrowers, then that is unjust and discriminatory. Hope that's a pretty straight forward answer. Don't disagree that it is not currently illegal, but that doesn't make it right nor ethical.

      Now return the favor with some honest answers so we all know where you stand.

      1) Do you believe it was just and fair that women couldn't vote until 1920?
      2) Do you believe it was just and fair that black and white people weren't allowed to eat at the same lunch counter in our State?
      3) Was mortgage loan redlining just and fair in the 1950's when it was legal?
      4) Hey, let's test you on the big one: Do you think slavery was just and fair until 1865? It was legal in our State until that time you know. Everybody was doing it!

      Would you have objected or just remained "anonymous"?

      Delete
    10. Talk about hyperbole! Comparing risk based lending to slavery?! Not exactly apples to apples. There are already laws, such as the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, that prohibit discrimination on a prohibited basis. Prohibited basis is generally defined in these laws to include race, sex and ethnicity. So by your own admission, risk based lending isn’t illegal, you just think it should be.

      Delete
    11. Ah once again, the "in good faith", "no answer answer"! Never quite enough strength of character to take a stand, even as an anonymouse! Our commenter evidently is a look the other way, "it's not my problem" type bystander in life.

      Same rate for all is also legal, fairer and clearly produced better financial results at SECU.

      Our commenter seems pleased that SECU is becoming an "also ran" credit union...

      Guess that's legal too!

      Delete
    12. Do young people generally have less money for down payments? If so, would legacy SECU charge them the same mortgage rate even if they couldn’t come up with a full down payment? I mean according to you, loan officers were so good that they could pick out the winners from the losers much more efficiently than they do today. So why charge a young teacher a higher interest rate on her mortgage if you know she’s going to pay it back the same as the rich doctor who can put 20% down?

      Delete
    13. 8:42am Some more "on second thought" poor logic from our 8:08 a.m. commenter.

      Hopefully this person is not a lending "thought leader" at SECU, although that would go a long way in explaining the rising delinquencies and record setting losses.

      Usually pass on commenting on this silly argument, but ... Offering a range of products and choices to all members is a bit different from unilaterally profiling an individual member by a credit score.

      The individual member applicant has never caused a loss to SECU. But they "profiled into a class" and the majority of individual members are then overcharged and penalized without any recourse. Being overcharged by SECU via RBL is not optional, its not a choice; the individual member has no opportunity for explanation nor defense. Guilty! Sorry, that's "not my problem" (see 8:40 am).

      And yes, "legacy" loan officers - experienced, knowledgeable, "know my member" - employees were able to pick "winners and losers", most often by finding real alternatives to help guide members toward better solutions.

      How do you know? The losses on SECU's "new/new" lending are now costing all members hundreds of millions of dollars annually. Real hard dollar costs... fact not fiction, unavoidably obvious.

      Mirror, mirror "thought leader"!

      Delete
    14. "And yes, "legacy" loan officers - experienced, knowledgeable, "know my member" - employees were able to pick "winners and losers", most often by finding real alternatives to help guide members toward better solutions."

      hopefully a win-win result for all parties which should always be the goal


      Delete
    15. @8:42 I have been asking this question for months now. Usually it just doesn't get published. Good luck getting an answer, it's not going to happen. He's smart enough to know this would directly contradict the argument he's trying to make about RBL.

      Delete
    16. @10:41a.m. See @ 9:54 a.m. Sorry to disappoint you with a straight answer. Hope, now in the future, you'll forego your past silliness on this.

      If not, lead off by answering why under race-based lending you're not even willing to listen to a reasonable explanation from a loyal member-owner?

      Don't need to? A waste of time to listen to people? Know it all, already?

      Delete
    17. Except you did not answer it. Having entire products that discriminate seems worst than looking at each applicant’s repayment history to SECU and others and setting a rate accordingly.

      Delete
    18. @12:04 Still trapped and fearful; in a desperate, limited access, "gated-community" of thought?

      Free choice of products is not discrimination.

      No choice profiling and overcharging of individual members who faithfully repay SECU is discrimination.

      Don't be so defensive; you don't have to be embarrassed about your willingness to discriminate - as you said it's legal.

      "It's not your problem", the individual members are paying the overcharge for your "lending theory" and the membership as a whole is absorbing the soaring costs of your lending recklessness.

      Lead us on down...

      .

      Delete
  9. @8:46 - You cherry picked the facts and contorted them to your benefit. Whether a regulator thinks it's discriminatory or not doesn’t change the moral and ethical consequences of implementing “redlining” in a cooperative.

    What about the member who has an unexpected job loss for 3 months and their score plummets only to find a new job and get back on track? What about the member who’s child has a major medical emergency and has to reduce hours or leave their job to attend to the child and has increased medical bills as well? Once the crisis passes they are back on their feet but their credit score stays impaired for much longer than that. What about the member with the low credit score that has a history of always paying SECU and now gets penalized with a higher rate regardless? What about the fact that average credit scores for Black, Hispanic, female and young members are lower than the scores for white males?

    RBL charges higher rates to members who have a higher likelihood of defaulting. Here’s a news flash - the ones that default don’t pay the higher rate - they defaulted! The ones paying the higher rate were going to pay back their loan from the beginning!

    The system is inherently discriminatory but its been that way for so long its become the status quo. That doesn’t make it right. I know you won’t understand this but credit unions are supposed to be different - not a bank or Fintech that takes advantage of people but a financial institution that gives every member the same opportunity.

    And yes, going from 5 tiers to 3 IS admitting defeat AND at the same time continuing to accept it. With the tiers bigger how is their not credit score discrimination for the top of the tier to the bottom of the tier? The top score in a tier is getting screwed any way you look at it - that is if you believe in RBL to start with.

    It’s lazy lending as SECU has turned their decision making over to a third party vendor with an algorithm that no one can explain.

    Hope your life continues to go perfectly and you never have to deal with a crisis. Unfortunately most of SECU’s member don’t have that luxury, they depend on the credit union for help, not to take advantage of them. Your comments are arrogant and condescending.

    ReplyDelete
  10. well I guess when you discriminate against everybody then it's ok ... I mean it is industry standard and has been for a long time ... you see these folks don't have to worry about it, they just get mama to co-sign ... or the 'regulatory' agencies to look the other way because they approve of it. Was Redlining ok too as long as the 'regulatory' agency(s) looked the other way?
    There's a wide path and a narrow one ... when SECU came to a fork in the road, it decided on the wide one that leads to destruction for it's members ...

    ReplyDelete

  11. Professing to be wise they became fools ...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Do you think the NCUA would look at SECU as higher risk if it began using 20-50% of those “large unused lines of credit” that were always bragged about in memos about financial condition and in financial reports? If so, do you think the NCUA would charge SECU more for this increased risk to their share insurance fund? What about hitting the maximum ceiling on those lines of credit?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not sure that this comparison makes any sense, but since you asked. The NCUA, your federal regulator, "charges" each an every credit union a "flat rate" of 1% for federal insurance... no risk based federal insurance. Thanks for asking!

      And the SECU Board and ELT must think "maxing out" credit lines is a good idea since SECU has that $5 billion loan from the FED. I take it you believe that is an unsafe and unsound practice?

      Again thanks for pointing this out.

      Delete
    2. If race based lending is the answer, why does the fed charge the same rate to all financial Institutions that borrow on those lines of credit which SECU currently owes 5 billion on?

      Delete
    3. 3:16 pm Each credit union has to send 1% of its insured deposits ( @$450 million for SECU) to NCUA, which holds that amount interest free .

      Delete
  13. So when did the board think that all their new shenanigans were okay with the member/owners?
    85 years of the same lending rate across the board is now not ok?
    My guess is 90-95% of members don't even know of the change.
    You won't know until you read it here or you go for a loan. I've never received a heads up.
    4 more in 24 ... and if that don't cure the problem repeat in 25!

    ReplyDelete
  14. https://www.secujustasking.com/search?q=credit+score

    ReplyDelete
  15. https://www.secujustasking.com/2023/03/secu-risk-based-lending-uh-oh-better.html

    ReplyDelete
  16. Whoever closes his ear to the cry of the poor
    will himself call out and not be answered.

    people have no compassion for those members in need

    ReplyDelete
  17. There’s an old saying about inept institutions that “a fish rots from the head.” jus sayin'

    ReplyDelete
  18. @10:41, good question. Risk-based lending is simply using risk characteristics to assign a price. We've been doing it for years, including the old/old leadership. Now a score gets added as one of the factors, and we have overt discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  19. @2:22 The consistent problem with your analyses is that you start with a false conjecture and then try to build an argument based on your fantasy fiction.

    In this case the CU has been pulling credit reports with credit scores for decades - not a new addition as you falsely claim. Just a bogus statement, but no need to apologize.

    The discrimination with RBL comes when you use the score to inappropriately overcharge the majority of SECU members. Not when you use the credit report to work with the member...y'know "People Helping People", remember?

    Rather than wasting time - for all of us - publicly spinning "yarns", which folks know aren't true ; why don't you try to determine why under your "new/new" lending leadership SECU is bleeding loan losses?

    Or is your answer still "Mike Lord made all those bad loans". Mr. Lord led SECU for over 40 years as CFO and CEO without these soaring losses. The problems seem to start only after he left...

    ... odd coincidence, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Part 2: @10:41, good question. It keeps being said the majority of members are being over-charged. Well, if the majority of the loans are in lower tiers, that explains the loss problem.

      Delete
    2. @3:01pm Oh really how does that explain the loss problem?

      The soaring losses only began under your "new/new" lending philosophy since 2021.

      ... odd coincidence, don't you think?

      Delete
    3. Part 3: @10:41, good question. What old /old should understand is one rate for all made the portfolio unbalanced with not enough A and B tier and that's why losses are high.

      Delete
    4. @ 3:07 pm Thought you had bragged that RBL and your "new/new" lending "strategy" were bringing in waves and waves of "A-paper" loans/?!

      If you now have a much higher percentage of "A-paper" loans in your loan portfolio shouldn't loan losses and delinquency be declining? Both are soaring, setting records.

      ... odd coincidence, don't you think?

      Is Mike Lord sneaking into the credit union at night and "still" making bad loans? Better check the security cameras...

      Delete
    5. Part 4: @10:41, good question.

      In one rate for all, all members absorbed the cost of subsidizing below market rates and the higher losses driven by a smaller population of members.

      Delete
    6. @ 3:19 Another fiction fantasy... let's take a look at actual loan losses.

      SECU annual loan loss projections are over a quarter of a billion dollars - $250 million - for 2024/2025.

      In the last year - 2021 - of the old/old "Mike Lord bad lending to unreliable members" regime annual losses totaled @ $50 million.

      Why don't you do one of those "raise your hands" polls and ask all SECU members if they would prefer to "absorb" $50 million in loan losses or to "absorb" $250 million in loan losses?

      Before they vote, tell the members that with the $200 million saved through a return to "old/old" fair lending practices, SECU will begin conducting a member-wide lottery.

      Each month - January thru November - 10 SECU members will be selected at random (regardless of credit score!!!) to receive a check of $1 million (before taxes). And in December at Christmas, 2 SECU members (again, regardless of credit score!!!) will be randomly selected to receive a check for $25 million each!

      Got it? be sure to let us know how the voting goes!

      And BTW, you can use the left over $40 million to fund SECU retiree health benefits forever... and beyond!

      Delete
    7. If you’re not charging off, you’re not lending enough.

      Delete
    8. "If you’re not charging off, you’re not lending enough."
      LOL .... must be the new/new .... 'spend more to stop inflation' kind of thinking!

      Delete
  20. no one said pulling credit scores is new. Using credit scores to define multiple tiers and charging a different by tier is new, is it not? If not, I don't know what all the RBL fuss is about then. don't really see that fact as fantasy or fiction. The reason for the losses is easy to explain, but difficult for you to accept. No, not Mike Lord's fault. You seem to be only one saying that. Losses were caused by one rate for all, not RBL, because there wasn't a good balance and enough A tier loans, as other CU's and banks were happy to serve them at better rates. We cornered the market on C-E, though by offering far below market rates. That's why losses are high now, and that's why loss rates, under old/old were higher than peers, too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @3:14 Reduced to babbling... whatever.

      Delete
    2. ???????? Loan losses were higher before Hayes? Under ”old/old”. Where’s that coming from? Your imagination…

      Delete
    3. "Losses were caused by one rate for all, not RBL"
      after 85 years this now becomes the problem ...
      hmmm ...

      Delete
    4. since the public probably paid for your education, can we get a refund?

      Delete
    5. @9:16, at least @3:14 is offering an explanation (or hypothesis) on why losses are so high. what's yours?

      Delete
    6. @11:56 am 3:14 is the problem. Inept management at SECU in leighduhship roles

      Delete
    7. How were losses only 50 million a year with this horribly UNBALANCED portfolio before race based lending?
      https://www.secujustasking.com/2023/02/secu-risk-based-lending-2.html?m=1

      Delete
    8. "@9:16, at least @3:14 is offering an explanation (or hypothesis) on why losses are so high. what's yours?"
      the board and bad mgmt come to mind, wouldn't be the first time this has happened ...
      I ain't privy to all the data but I'll stick with MY hypothesis ...

      Delete
  21. ML has been gone for years ...
    this baby is yours ... OWN IT!
    You new/new guys seem to have all the answers ...

    ReplyDelete
  22. Has SECU lost all the loan data prior to Gym Hayes running amuck? It's obvious no analytical comparison has been made to Pre-Hayes and Post -Hayes loan policies. Leigh Brady has not changed anything except to make a lot of things worse--hard to believe, but true. What on earth is the CFO doing not to be pushing a hard look at these numbers? If the new/new is so wonderful, where are the wonderful data to convince all of us members? If this is industry standard, and everyone else can run their credit union without all these loan losses, what does that tell the members about how SECU is being run?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Maybe once RBL losses drop because or RBL, that $$ can me put into better deposit rates for ALL members.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Charge-offs won't be $250 million in 2024. It's unclear how that projection was derived. Rising delinquency is mostly a mortgage story. Losses were high for unsecured, card and auto in 1Q, but 30-60, and 60+ delinquency dropped significantly in 1Q and that continues, and lower charge off dollars will follow.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @6:49pm "Charge-offs won't be $250 million in 2024. It's unclear how that projection was derived."

      SECU reported to the federal regulator that net charge offs for the 1st quarter ( first 3 months) of 2024 were $72 million.

      4 quarters x $72 million = $288 million. (was trying to be nice by rounding down to $250 million!)

      Very happy to be wrong on this estimate, I apologize.

      Delete
    2. 7:06 pm fair enough. 2Q came in lower, and leading indicators of losses, like early term delinquency, improved in 1Q, in what's seen on public call reports.

      Delete
  25. the comparison being given of $50 million, picks a low point from the impact of the pandemic with all the stimulus $, where we and other CU's and banks experienced virtually unprecedented low loss rates

    ReplyDelete
  26. @ 7:17 pm "picks a low point from the impact of the pandemic with all the stimulus $, where we and other CU's and banks experienced virtually unprecedented low loss rates"

    Still making up "stuff"... first most folks remember the pandemic really got stated in 2020 and the government checks didn't go out until 2020.

    Then there is that problem with factual, federal regulatory data. You'll note below that 2019 was one of SECU's highest loan loss rates, not lowest.

    No dispute either that SECU now leads the peer pack in losses - 3 years in a row! - by @150% in 2023!

    LOAN LOSSES BY YEAR
    2013 SECU: .21% CU Peers: .52%

    2014 SECU: .20% CU Peers: .45%

    2015 SECU: .26% CU Peers: .42%

    2016 SECU: .33% CU Peers: .47%

    2017 SECU: .40% CU Peers: .50%

    2018 SECU: .45% CU Peers: .48%

    2019 SECU: .43% CU Peers: .46%

    2020 SECU: .30% CU Peers: .36%

    2021 SECU: .20% CU Peers: .19%

    2022 SECU: .35% CU Peers: .24%

    2023 SECU: .62% CU Peers: .43%

    ReplyDelete